Skip to main content

SC Dismisses Centre’s Appeal Against Treating Children Born Out Of Void Marriages As Legitimate

In UNION OF INDIA & ORS. vs M. KARUMBAYEE, the Supreme Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the Govt. and upheld the Madras High Court Judgment which had held that children born out of void marriages are legitimate.

The matter relates to the appointment on compassionate grounds in Southern Railway, of  a deceased employee’s son, born to his second wife, as he did not have any issue from his first wife. The Southern Railway rejected the claim for appointment on the ground that children born to second wife were not recognised and second wife was not entitled to any benefits, as per the instructions of the Railway Board.   According to the Railway Board’s Circulated, dated 2.1.1992, appointment on compassionate ground, cannot be granted to the children born to second wife.

The Madras Bench of the CAT rejected the Railway’s contention on the basis of the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of the Kolkata High Court in the case of Smt.Namita Goldar and another v Union of India and others.

The Supreme Court too, in the case of Rameshwari Devi v State of Bihar, [2000(2) SCC 431) had held that the second marriage during the subsistence of first marriage may be illegal, but the children born out of such second marriage are legitimate and are also entitled to the estate of the father. It is because under Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, children of a void marriage are legitimate.

Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/sc-dismisses-centres-appeal-treating-children-born-void-marriages-legitimate-read-order/

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more